Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31813032›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020

Evidence for the urogynaecology multidisciplinary team meeting: evaluation from a secondary care perspective.

Keren E Wales, Anupama Saxena, Thomas G Gray

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Keren E WalesSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, c/o Tricia Kenyon, Level 4, Jessop Wing, Tree Root Walk, Sheffield, S10 2SF, UK.
Anupama SaxenaThe Rotherham Foundation NHS Trust, Rotherham, UK.
Thomas G GraySheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, c/o Tricia Kenyon, Level 4, Jessop Wing, Tree Root Walk, Sheffield, S10 2SF, UK. Thomas.Gray@doctors.org.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7719-4366
Jessop Hospital · GBThe Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUrogynaecology multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings to discuss management plans prior to invasive treatments for urinary incontinence have been recommended by guidelines in the UK since 2013. Evidence for MDT discussion in urogynaecology is lacking, with only two published studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cases discussed at a secondary care urogynaecology MDT meeting, to establish types of clinical problems discussed, assess the outcomes of the MDT meeting and compare this with existing evidence for MDT meetings in urogynaecology.

methodsA retrospective review of meeting minutes and all case notes for patients discussed at 12 MDT meetings over 13 months was carried out. Data collected included attendance from different staff groups, reasons for referral, outcome of discussions, and changes to management plans.

resultsA total of 123 cases were discussed over 12 meetings, 7 members of staff attended each meeting on average. 63% of cases were referred for discussion of a primary problem. The majority of patients were referred for discussion of management of urinary incontinence prior to invasive procedures (57%). The agreed MDT plan corresponded with proposed management in 67% of cases, with changes to management plan in 31% of cases.

conclusionRefinements to management plans in this study highlight the importance of MDT input in urogynaecology care and mirror the findings of two previous studies. Evidence for improved outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of MDTs is lacking and is an area for future research. Expanded national guidance for urogynaecology MDTs is likely to require local and regional restructuring of these in the UK.

Indexed as

Secondary Health CareUrinary IncontinenceHumansPatient Care TeamReferral and ConsultationRetrospective StudiesMultidisciplinary teamProlapseUrinary incontinenceUrogynaecology

Identifiers

PMID31813032
OpenAlexW2993008821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.